Magazine Bill Amended

FredHayek wrote: ....This bill would make it illegal to possess, sell, or manufacture magazines over 15 rounds without a grandfather law so hundreds of thousands of Coloradoans could find themselves lawbreakers overnight......

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2 ... 224_01.pdf

The bill prohibits the sale, transfer, or possession of an ammunition feeding device that is capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 shotgun shells (large-capacity magazine). A person may possess a large-capacity magazine if he or she owns the large-capacity magazine on the effective date of the bill and maintains continuous possession of the large-capacity magazine.

A person who sells, transfers, or possesses a large-capacity magazine in violation of the new provision commits a class 2
misdemeanor.

Sounds grandfathered to me.

Making original magazines grandfathered makes it much more palatable.

But one of the largest magazine sellers in America, Magpul, located in Boulder/Erie, is a 50 million dollar company that employs 200 people and has subcontractors who employ 700 people has said they would move out of the state if this bill passes. that is a lot of jobs and a lot of taxes for Colorado.

I think leaving liability in the hands of civil lawyers is fine.

Colorado adjudicated 3.5 as many civil cases as criminal cases. Why? We have kajillions of hungry ambulance chasers that will be happy to help gun violence victims and their families sue someone. In fact, the supply of lawsuit happy lawyers is likely higher than the supply of District Attorneys (ergo - I think the civil system works better!).

Homes' psychiatrist has already been handed numerous lawsuits, because he didn't adequately identify Homes as a threat.

(the gun dealers are silent, and they're protected by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 - provided that Homes' purchase was legal - which it was).

If you want to make life miserable for someone - don't pass laws ---- just call a lawyer.

A large-capacity magazine that is manufactured in Colorado on or
after the effective date of the bill must include a serial number and the
date upon which the large-capacity magazine was manufactured or
assembled. The serial number and date must be legibly and conspicuously
engraved or cast upon the outer surface of the large-capacity magazine.
The Colorado bureau of investigation may promulgate rules that may
require a large-capacity magazine that is manufactured on or after the
effective date of the bill to bear identifying information in addition to the
serial number and date of assembly.
A person who manufactures a large-capacity magazine in Colorado
in violation of the new provision commits a class 2 misdemeanor.

I'm assuming the first paragraph applies to companies and the 2nd paragraph to individuals.

More unintended consequences? So if this passes, you will have until July to stock up on those high capacity magazines. So will this increase the supply in state by 20%?

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Supreme Court has ruled that gun registration is within the purview of the 2nd Amendment. I concur. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment or in the Constitution that would prohibit gun registration as long as it is deemed to promote the general welfare of the United States, just as requiring motor vehicles used on public roads to be registered. I have no problem with the 2nd Amendment or any of the other Bill of Rights.

Mmm, databases are already in use to monitor those who have been adjudicated as a danger to others in regard to background checks. There is currently legislation being considered to enable those databases to be expanded to allow trained mental health professionals to add to those databases without being prosecuted for HIPPA or other patient confidential laws. Those who are on those databases have the ability to appeal their inclusion.

As to your assertion that since felons do not obey laws, therefore we should not have laws, that is simply absurd. Not all misuse of firearms is done by felons. In fact, James Holmes was not a felon, Adam Lanza was not a felon.

The mental health issue is a strange one. I'd like to see how it actually works out. I'm not nuts, so I'm not worried about it. I just don't know how you would make it work in reality. Have everyone in the country see a professional for one session/yr? Per 5 yrs?

You are right...James Holmes and Adam Lanza could have purchased their own guns, and would have passed background checks....so how will new laws stop them?

Holmes' psychiatrist was considering having him evaluated as well as Lanza's mother in regard to Lanza. Making it easier for mental health professionals, as I described above, may have added them both to the background check database. Lanza did not purchase his guns, but maybe the increased in civil liability may have encouraged his mother to keep them more secure.

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So if you sell a car to a drunken individual to drive off your property, you do not feel that you are responsible in any way for the death of the children playing in the street next door after he runs them over?

The proposed bill would only make you liable if you choose to sell a firearm without doing a background check. Simple, don't be a criminal and do the damn background check.

False analogy. You are saying I should run a background check to see if the person I'm selling the car to drinks. Then, if they run over the neighbor kid, I'm responsible.

The proposed bill would only work under a gun registration model, which I am very opposed to. It is nobody's business who has guns, unless they are felons.

After giving your comment more thought, how does this legislation create a gun registration model? I don't see it. My understanding is that no records are kept by any government agency in regard to the actual firearm purchase. Instead it is up to the private entities to maintain records regarding the chain of purchase of firearms. Nowhere does this legislation create a registery, and no one will know what firearms you own, other than the seller of a firearm to you.

LE typically obtains the serial number of a firearm used in a crime, then contacts the manufacturer who provides the entity to whom they sold the firearm. The chain of custody is then followed from seller to purchaser to the final purchaser.

No one keeps a registery nor is there any contemplation of creating one in Colorado. That is just another NRA scare tactic.

LE typically obtains the serial number of a firearm used in a crime, then contacts the manufacturer who provides the entity to whom they sold the firearm. The chain of custody is then followed from seller to purchaser to the final purchaser.

So, if I sell a firearm and do a background check through a dealer, whose business records are destroyed in a fire or other means, and that firearm is later transferred several times by individuals who do not utilize a dealer to make a background check, I am then liable for anything that the final purchaser of that firearm, over whom I have no control, might do with it?

Something the Dog Said wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So if you sell a car to a drunken individual to drive off your property, you do not feel that you are responsible in any way for the death of the children playing in the street next door after he runs them over?

The proposed bill would only make you liable if you choose to sell a firearm without doing a background check. Simple, don't be a criminal and do the damn background check.

False analogy. You are saying I should run a background check to see if the person I'm selling the car to drinks. Then, if they run over the neighbor kid, I'm responsible.

The proposed bill would only work under a gun registration model, which I am very opposed to. It is nobody's business who has guns, unless they are felons.

After giving your comment more thought, how does this legislation create a gun registration model? I don't see it. My understanding is that no records are kept by any government agency in regard to the actual firearm purchase. Instead it is up to the private entities to maintain records regarding the chain of purchase of firearms. Nowhere does this legislation create a registery, and no one will know what firearms you own, other than the seller of a firearm to you.

LE typically obtains the serial number of a firearm used in a crime, then contacts the manufacturer who provides the entity to whom they sold the firearm. The chain of custody is then followed from seller to purchaser to the final purchaser.

No one keeps a registery nor is there any contemplation of creating one in Colorado. That is just another NRA scare tactic.

Because the only way to keep this "chain of custody" record straight is to do so. This information is already readily available to LE. Is it in the bill, no, not as far as I know, but IF it were to pass, they would realize what an impossible thing to track...so we need a registration system.

It isn't scare tactics...it is reality. Many politicians would love to ban guns. Many would love to confiscate. They just don't have the #'s....yet.

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So if you sell a car to a drunken individual to drive off your property, you do not feel that you are responsible in any way for the death of the children playing in the street next door after he runs them over?

The proposed bill would only make you liable if you choose to sell a firearm without doing a background check. Simple, don't be a criminal and do the damn background check.

False analogy. You are saying I should run a background check to see if the person I'm selling the car to drinks. Then, if they run over the neighbor kid, I'm responsible.

The proposed bill would only work under a gun registration model, which I am very opposed to. It is nobody's business who has guns, unless they are felons.

After giving your comment more thought, how does this legislation create a gun registration model? I don't see it. My understanding is that no records are kept by any government agency in regard to the actual firearm purchase. Instead it is up to the private entities to maintain records regarding the chain of purchase of firearms. Nowhere does this legislation create a registery, and no one will know what firearms you own, other than the seller of a firearm to you.

LE typically obtains the serial number of a firearm used in a crime, then contacts the manufacturer who provides the entity to whom they sold the firearm. The chain of custody is then followed from seller to purchaser to the final purchaser.

No one keeps a registery nor is there any contemplation of creating one in Colorado. That is just another NRA scare tactic.

Because the only way to keep this "chain of custody" record straight is to do so. This information is already readily available to LE. Is it in the bill, no, not as far as I know, but IF it were to pass, they would realize what an impossible thing to track...so we need a registration system.

It isn't scare tactics...it is reality. Many politicians would love to ban guns. Many would love to confiscate. They just don't have the #'s....yet.

That would be scare tactics, since there is nothing in any legislation, there is nothing in existing laws nor are there any proposals to add such registry to the laws. It is simply hyperbole to claim that the only way to keep the chain of custody straight is by such a registry, particularly since the existing method has been in use for decades. Nope, this is all scare tactics since it has no basis in reality.